|Baldwin, Elizabeth - Liz|
Submitted to: Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science
Publication Type: Peer reviewed journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 3/9/1998
Publication Date: N/A
Citation: Interpretive Summary: Consumers often complain about tomato flavor, especially during winter months when tomatoes are grown far from site of purchase. In an effort to determine flavor problems associated with this product, much chemical analyses of flavor components in tomato are being done. Basically, flavor in fruits and vegetables is made up of sugars, acids and aroma compounds. This study relates different methods of chemical analysis of these components of flavor to ratings given to tomatoes tested by panels made up of both consumer and trained personnel. The purpose is to determine which analytical methods best reflect the human taste experience and which components of flavor appear to affect panel ratings.
Technical Abstract: Tomato acceptability, flavor, sweetness and sourness for 7 tomato cultigens were rated by an experienced panel on a 9 point scale. Nine other tomato cultigens were rated by a trained descriptive panel using a 15 cm line scale for sweetness, sourness, 5 aroma, and 7 taste descriptors. Sensory data were compared to instrumental analysis of flavor compounds including soluble solids (SS), individual sugars converted to sucrose equivalents (SE), titratable acidity (TA), pH, ratios of SS or SE to TA, and 17 flavor volatiles using SAS correlation and regression analysis. Measurement of the ratios and TA correlated with overall acceptability; SE/TA with flavor; and SS and pH with sourness. For aroma volatiles: acetaldehyde, acetone, ethanol, methanol, 1-penten-3-one, hexanal, cis-3-hexenal, 2+3-methylbutanol, trans-2- hexenal, 6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one, cis-3-hexenol, 2-isobutylthiazole, 1- nitro-phenylethane, geranylacetone and B-ionone showed significant relationships to sensory data and some affected perception of sweetness and sourness.